coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Barnaul, the Altay Region.
5.  On 20 December 1998 police searched the applicant's house.
6.  On 20 June 2000 the Industrialnyy District Court of Barnaul found, upon the applicant's complaint, that the search had been unlawful. The judgment was not appealed against and acquired legal force ten days later. On 8 May 2001 the Presidium of the Altay Regional Court rejected the Prosecutor's application for supervisory review and upheld the judgment of 20 June 2000.
7.  On 18 December 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Barnaul granted the applicant's action against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation for compensation of non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the unlawful search and awarded the applicant 5,000 Russian roubles. By a decision of 24 March 2004 the Altay Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. On 29 July 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court issued a writ of execution.
8.  On 15 October 2004 the applicant forwarded the writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance, but on 10 November 2004 the Ministry of Finance returned it to the applicant on the ground that he had failed to submit a duly certified copy of the judgment of 18 December 2003 and a payment request with indication of his bank account.
9.  On 6 December 2004 the applicant re-submitted the enforcement materials to the Ministry of Finance. However, on 12 January 2005 the Ministry of Finance returned them to the applicant for the reason that the date of delivery of the judgment had been indicated incorrectly.
10.  On 8 February 2005 the enforcement documents were once again forwarded to the Ministry of Finance.
11.  The date on which the judgment was enforced is disputed by the parties. According to the Government, the judgment was fully enforced on 2 May 2005. From the applicant's submissions it follows that he had received the amount awarded by the judgment of 18 December 2003 on 2 May 2006.
4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Vác.
5.  The facts of the case as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 17 July 1997 the applicant's employment with the Vác Health Care School was terminated. He challenged the school's decision before the Budapest Labour Court. On 7 February 2001 the Labour Court dismissed his action. The applicant appealed.
7.  On 14 September 2001 the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision. The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. On 29 January 2003 the review bench of the Supreme Court finally dismissed his action. The applicant requested its re-opening, but to no avail.
8.  In December 1999 the applicant, transporting medical equipment in his lorry, was halted at the Belarus border. While he was completing the necessary documents, the contents of his lorry were robbed. Purportedly in order to clarify the events, the Belarus authorities took the applicant into custody for approximately two weeks, after which he was allowed to return to Hungary.
9.  On 23 September 2001 the applicant initiated a civil action in the Vác District Court against a Belarus official who had participated in the above events.
10.  On 6 February 2003 the District Court informed the applicant that his case had been registered as a claim for compensation. In view of the fact that the case file had meanwhile been lost, it requested him to reproduce certain documents.
11.  On 4 April 2003 the applicant again submitted his action.
12.  On 20 April 2003 the District Court ordered the applicant to state his financial situation with a view to determining his request for legal aid. On 20 May 2003 the applicant submitted the necessary documents.
13.  The case is still pending before the District Court.
14.  In 1993 the applicant's luggage was lost during his flight to Canada. The applicant unsuccessfully requested the airline to compensate him.
15.  On 23 September 2001 the applicant brought an action in compensation against the company. On 6 February 2003 the Vác District Court informed the applicant that that case file had been lost and requested him to reproduce certain documents.
16.  The case is apparently is still pending before the District Court.
5.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Schaan, Liechtenstein.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 24 August 1996 the company Hilti and Hilti Handles AG, owned by the applicant, initiated the liquidation of the Hungarian company S., since the latter had been reluctant to pay its outstanding debts amounting to 1,250,000 German Marks (approximately 639,114.85 euros).
8.  On 17 September 1996 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant's claim and terminated the liquidation proceedings, since the debtor had contested both the existence and the amount of its debts and the applicant had not been able to prove that company S. was insolvent.
9.  On appeal, on 7 November 1997 the Supreme Court, acting as a second-instance court, quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the Regional Court.
10.  On 10 March 1998 the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing and invited the applicant to submit all relevant documents proving the insolvency of company S. Upon the applicant's request, the Regional Court extended the time-limit. On 6 May 1998 the applicant submitted the information requested.
11.  On 2 November 1998 the Regional Court ordered the liquidation of the company S. On 7 January 1999 the latter merged with company C.
12.  On 8 January 2001, under the same file-number, the Supreme Court, acting as a second-instance court, quashed the first-instance decision. It observed that the debtor had merged with company C. and held that, without the examination of the latter's solvency, its liquidation should not have been ordered.
13.  On 13 March 2001 the Regional Court invited the applicant to declare whether his company wished to maintain its claim. The suit was maintained.
14.  In the resumed proceedings, on 18 April 2001 the Budapest Regional Court found that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the case and transferred it to the Zala County Regional Court.
15.  On 8 October 2001 the Regional Court ordered the liquidation of company C. Subsequently, the Regional Court withdrew this decision because of procedural shortcomings.
16.  On 30 May 2002 the Regional Court again ordered the liquidation of company C. and appointed a liquidator. The company appealed.
17.  On 1 April 2003 the Supreme Court, acting as a second-instance court, dismissed the appeal. On 9 September 2003 the Regional Court accepted the liquidator's closing balance sheet.
18.  On 29 April 2005 the Regional Court ordered, in simplified proceedings (egyszerűsített felszámolási eljárás), the liquidation of company C. It established that the debtor's assets were insufficient to cover the expenses of the liquidation proceedings and the applicant's claim.
19.  On 28 May 2005 the Regional Court dissolved company C., which was consequently deleted from the company register on 18 July 2005.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Budapest.
5.  In 1990 the applicant and other plaintiffs filed an action for the settlement of accounts between certain individuals with whom she had built a block of flats. On 11 September 1990 the Buda Central District Court discontinued the proceedings. On appeal, on 19 December 1990 the case was remitted to the first-instance court.
6.  After numerous hearings in the resumed proceedings, on 24 April 1996 the District Court found in part for the applicant. On appeal, on 6 March 1998 the Budapest Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court.
7.  In the resumed proceedings, numerous hearings took place between 11 February 1999 and 2 December 2004. The court also obtained the opinion of an expert.
8.  On 19 April 2005 the District Court found in part for the applicant. This decision was amended by the Regional Court on 22 February 2006.
4.  The applicants were born in 1963, 1958 and 1966, respectively, and live in Beograd.
5.  On 23 May 2001 the applicants were dismissed from their work.
6.  On 6 June 2001 they instituted civil proceedings in the Beograd Third Municipal Court against their former employer, seeking reinstatement and salary arrears.
7.  Sometime after the respondent State's ratification of the Convention on 3 March 2004, the applicants' case was assigned to another judge.
8.  The next hearing in the case was held on 26 October 2004, when the court decided to hear several witnesses.
9.  The hearing scheduled for 23 December 2004 was adjourned by the judge. Subsequently, the case was yet again assigned to another judge and the next hearing was scheduled for 9 September 2005, but did not take place because the witnesses had not been duly summoned.
10.  The next hearing, scheduled for 23 November 2005, was adjourned because the summoned witnesses failed to appear.
11.  On 24 February 2006 the court held a hearing and heard the applicants and a witness. The applicants requested the court to obtain an additional expert opinion concerning the amount of their salary arrears. The court held two more hearings – on 31 March and 15 May 2006.
12.  On 18 May 2006 the court ordered the applicants to advance the costs of the proposed expert opinion and to suggest an expert. The applicants did so on 1 June. At the next hearing held on 16 June 2006, the court ordered that the expert opinion be obtained. The appointed expert submitted the opinion on 5 October 2006.
13.  The court held further hearings on 13 October and 15 November 2006. The respondent then filed a request for a transfer of jurisdiction, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 6 December 2006.
14.  The court held further hearings on 2 and 16 February and on 16 March 2007. On the last mentioned date the court gave judgment, accepting the applicants' claim. The applicants appealed against the decision on costs and the proceedings are currently pending before the second-instance court.
5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Chisinau.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
7.  The applicant initiated court proceedings against a private individual. On 6 October 2000 the Centru District Court awarded him 2,000 United States Dollars (USD). No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final and enforceable fifteen days later. He obtained an enforcement warrant, which the bailiff did not enforce.
8.  In response to a request of the Centru District Court dated 22 December 2000, the Chişinău Land Register stated that the debtor did not have any real estate registered in Chişinău.
9.  On 14 February 2001 a bailiff established that the debtor did not live at the address indicated by the applicant and that, accordingly, it was impossible to enforce the judgment.
10.  On 6 March 2001 the debtor's wife paid the applicant USD 1,000.
11.  On 16 March 2001 the Centru District Court ordered the local police to determine the debtor's whereabouts. On an unknown date a copy of the decision was sent to the local police station. On 3 February 2004 the police decided to take steps to locate the debtor. According to the police, the debtor cannot be found.
12.  The judgment of 6 October 2000 has not been enforced to date.
4.  The applicant was born in 1924 and lives in Voronezh.
5.  The applicant sued the local social welfare authority (Комитет по социальной защите населения администрации Советского района г. Воронежа) claiming readjustment of her old-age pension. On 23 February 2001 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh granted her claim and awarded her 2,562.44 Russian roubles. No appeal was brought against the judgment, and it became final and enforceable ten days later.
6.  On 5 March 2001 the bailiff initiated enforcement proceedings.
7.  On 26 July 2001 the bailiff terminated the proceedings because the defendant had not had sufficient funds to pay the judgment debt.
8.  On 2 December 2005 the monies due to the applicant were transferred into her bank account.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Łódź.
5.  On 22 May 1991 the applicant filed a claim for payment against his former employer with the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki). On 2 December 1991 the court gave judgment. Upon the applicant's appeal the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacjny) remitted the case on 22 April 1992.
6.  On 19 August 1993 the Regional Court held the first hearing in the case. Subsequently, hearings were held on 19 October 1993, 10 March and 26 April 1994.
7.  In 1995 the court held two hearings, on 14 February and 13 June, and ordered the preparation of an expert opinion.
8.  On 15 March 1996 the Łódź Regional Court gave a preliminary judgment.
9.  On 14 August 1996 the Łódź Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case.
10.  On 16 June and 14 October 1997 the Regional Court held further hearings. On 28 October 1997 the Łódź Regional Court gave judgment. It was upheld by the Łódź Court of Appeal on 10 March 1998.
11.  On 9 June 1998 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal. On 16 December 1999 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) held one hearing and gave judgment in which it dismissed the cassation appeal.
12.  On 16 March 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint under section 18 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). On 10 May 2005 the Łódź Court of Appeal rejected the appeal as it was inadmissible in law.
13.  On 13 June 2005 the applicant lodged a claim for damages under section 16 of the 2004 Act read in conjunction with Article 417 of the Civil Code. He sought compensation for the alleged mistakes in the examination of his claims and for the protracted length of the proceedings.
On 30 September 2005 the Łódź Regional Court dismissed the claim. His appeal against the judgment was dismissed by the Łódź Court of Appeal on 18 May 2006. The applicant submitted that he had not lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. The Government maintained that such an appeal was pending before the Supreme Court.
14.  In his letter of 30 March 2003 the applicant submitted additional complaints about another set of civil proceedings for reinstatement.
15.  On 29 June 1999 the applicant appealed to the Olsztyn District Court against a decision to dismiss him from work.
16.  On 19 October 2000 the Olsztyn District Court gave judgment. On 15 January 2001 the Olsztyn Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicant filed a cassation appeal. On 27 February 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's cassation appeal for failure to comply with procedural requirements.
6.  The applicant was born in 1921 and lives in Cupcini.
7.  In 1949 the applicant’s parents were persecuted by the communist authorities. Their property was confiscated and they were exiled to Siberia.
8.  In 1989 they were rehabilitated.
9.  On an unspecified date in 2004 the applicant brought an action against the Edineţ Department of Finances, seeking compensation for the confiscation of his parents’ property.
10.  On 24 March 2004 the Edineţ District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay him 97,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 6,284 euros (EUR) at the time). The judgment was not appealed against and after fifteen days it became final and enforceable.
11.  On 6 May 2004 a Bailiff received the enforcement warrant.
12.  On 28 January 2005 the Bailiff sent the enforcement warrant to the President of Edineţ County, without having enforced it.
13.  The judgment of 24 March 2004 has not been enforced to date.
6.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Chişinău.
7.  In July 1994 the applicant concluded a contract with ASITO (a private insurance company incorporated in Moldova) whereby she paid an insurance premium in exchange for a fixed annuity of  500 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 122.55 United States dollars (USD) at the time) in addition to her pension (“annuity”). She started receiving her annuity in August 1996. In January 1999 ASITO stopped paying it, invoking a change in the interest rate of the National Bank of Moldova.
8.  On 4 March 1999 the applicant brought an action against ASITO, seeking the payment of the annuity to date and requiring the company to abide by the contract.
9.  On 21 June 1999 the Râşcani District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered ASITO to pay her the pension arrears in the amount of MDL 3,421.50 (the equivalent of 282.32 euros (EUR) at the time). ASITO lodged an appeal with the Chişinău Regional Court, which dismissed it on 25 April 2000. ASITO did not appeal and the judgment became final and enforceable.
10.  On 29 May 2000 the applicant lodged a request with the Râşcani District Court seeking enforcement of the judgment in her favour. The latter did not reply, but sent the enforcement warrant to a Bailiff only on 17 May 2002.
11. In the meantime, since in its judgment of 21 June 1999 the Râşcani District Court had ruled only on the payment of the pension arrears, on 24 November 2000 it issued an additional judgment in favour of the applicant and ordered ASITO to abide by the contract and to resume the monthly payments. That judgment became final.
12. Between 2000 and 2002 the applicant lodged other complaints about the non-enforcement of the judgments in her favour with the Râşcani District Court, the Bailiff, the Ministry of Justice and the Superior Council of Magistrates. On 8 May 2002 the Ministry of Justice requested the Râşcani District Court to take all necessary steps, including the sanctioning of the persons responsible, in order to enforce the judgments in favour of the applicant and to inform her about the outcome of the enforcement proceedings. The applicant did not receive any further reply; nor were any sanctions imposed on the debtor company or its employees.
13.  The final judgment of 25 April 2000 and the additional judgment of 24 November 2000 were enforced on 5 September 2003.
II.
6.  The applicant was born in 1920 and lives in Edineţ.
7.  In 1949 the applicant was persecuted by the communist authorities. His property was confiscated and he was exiled to Siberia for fifteen years.
8. In 1989 he was rehabilitated.
9.  On an unspecified date in 2003 he brought an action against the Edineţ Department of Finances, seeking compensation for the confiscation of his property.
10.  On 25 September 2003 the Edineţ District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay him 80,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 5,198 euros (EUR) at the time). The judgment was not appealed against and after fifteen days it became final and enforceable.
11.  On 27 October 2003 a Bailiff received the enforcement warrant.
12.  On 28 January 2005 the Bailiff sent the enforcement warrant to the President of Edineţ County, without having enforced it.
13.  The judgment of 25 September 2003 has not been enforced to date.
6.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Cuconeştii-Noi.
7.  In 1949 the applicant was persecuted by the communist authorities. His property was confiscated and he was exiled to Siberia for ten years.
8.  In 1989 he was rehabilitated.
9.  On an unspecified date in 2004 he brought an action against the Edineţ Department of Finances, seeking compensation for the confiscation of his property.
10.  On 27 February 2004 the Edineţ District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay him 100,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 6,333 euros (EUR) at the time). The judgment was not appealed and after fifteen days it became final and enforceable.
11.  On 4 April 2004 a Bailiff received the enforcement warrant.
12.  On 28 January 2005 the Bailiff sent the enforcement warrant to the President of Edineţ County, without having enforced it.
13.  The judgment of 27 February 2004 has not been enforced to date.
6.  The applicant who was born in 1923 and lives in Terebna.
7.  In 1949 the applicant and her parents had been persecuted by the communist authorities. Their property was confiscated and they were exiled to Siberia. In 1989 they were rehabilitated.
8.  On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicant brought an action against the Edineţ Department of Finances, seeking compensation for the confiscated property.
9.  On 24 December 2003 the Edineţ District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay her 63,885 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 3,901 euros (EUR) at the time). The judgment was not appealed against and after fifteen days it became final and enforceable.
10.  On 23 February 2004 a Bailiff received the enforcement warrant.
11.  The judgment has not been enforced to date.
6.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Edineţ.
7.  Following the applicant's unlawful detention for three days and then his acquittal, on an unspecified date in 2002 he brought an action against the Edineţ Department of Finances, seeking compensation for wrongful prosecution.
8.  On 3 December 2002 the Edineţ District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay him 11,739 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 850.04 euros (EUR) at the time). On the same date the District Court issued an enforcement warrant. The judgment was not appealed against and after fifteen days it became final and enforceable.
9.  On 11 June 2003 a Bailiff of the Edineţ District sent the enforcement warrant to a Bailiff of the Râşcani District.
10.  In May 2006, after the case had been communicated to the Government, the judgment was enforced.
6.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in the Stavropol Region.
7.  By a judgment of 5 December 2000 following a guilty verdict delivered by a jury, the Stavropol Regional Court convicted the applicant and his co‑defendant of murder, robbery and the illegal acquisition, storage and carrying of arms. The applicant was sentenced to sixteen years' imprisonment and confiscation of property and ordered to pay pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the victim.
8.  The applicant, who was being held in custody, appealed against the judgment to the Supreme Court of Russia. He submitted, inter alia, that the judgment had been based on evidence which had not been thoroughly examined, that the investigating authority had failed to verify his co‑defendant's statements by way of a scene-of-crime reconstruction, that the court had dismissed his request for examination of additional witnesses, that no psychiatric and psychological examination had been conducted and that he had had no motive to commit the murder and robbery. He requested the appeal court to quash the judgment and order a fresh examination of the case.
9.  On 21 February 2001 the Supreme Court examined the applicant's appeal. It heard a public prosecutor who requested that the judgment should be upheld. The applicant, who had not been apprised of the hearing, was not present. He was not represented by counsel at the hearing.
10.  By a decision of 21 February 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the judgment. It found that the trial court's presiding judge had conducted the trial impartially and ensured that the case had been thoroughly examined. There had been no need for a scene-of-crime reconstruction by the investigating authority, as the evidence collected in the case had been sufficient. The applicant's unsuccessful request for examination of evidence had not concerned evidence which could have had a significant impact on the outcome of the case. The applicant's submission that he had had no motive to commit the murder and robbery could not serve as a ground for quashing a jury-based judgment, and the applicant had been informed of this by the trial court. The applicant's complaint about the authorities' failure to order a psychiatric and psychological examination had not been based on law, as neither the investigating authority nor the trial court had had doubts about the applicant's mental health and no request for such an examination had been made before or during the trial.